What do you think the Ramsey's original plan was...

[Miz Adventure]

I'm currently reading, Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. There Atari founder Nolan Bushnell is quoted as telling Steve Job's Pretend to be in complete control and people will assume that you are.

.

Steve Jobs is a hero of mine.

 

[singularity]

For the BDI theory to work, it doesn't need to include everything, imo. I think it's reasonable to think PR would cover up for BR, which would include staging and writing the RN. What were her words? “If I lost Burke I would have no reason to go on living.”

Every parent would say that about their surviving child.

Might not need to include everything but it needs to include more than it does. BDI takes less into account than any theory ever pushed...including IDI.

BDI people say its because there are boxes of evidence we aren't privy to that contain that evidence, and an unaired two hour documentary that just so happens to include some people on the verge of being sued due to accusing him with no evidence, etc.

IMO that ransom note would sound entirely different if Burke killed her and Patsy is merely covering for him with it.

 

[AB1]

Every parent would say that about their surviving child.

Might not need to include everything but it needs to include more than it does. BDI takes less into account than any theory ever pushed...including IDI.

BDI people say its because there are boxes of evidence we aren't privy to that contain that evidence, and an unaired two hour documentary that just so happens to include some people on the verge of being sued due to accusing him with no evidence, etc.

IMO that ransom note would sound entirely different if Burke killed her and Patsy is merely covering for him with it.[/QUOTE]

That's interesting. Which parts are you thinking of?
The RN certainly displays mixed emotions towards JR - I read it as "you're successful, respected, but stupid".

 

[singularity]

Great post Prahasaurus but wanted to hit on a couple things.

2 - The Ramseys had no idea the case would turn into a national spectacle. Keep that in mind when examining their actions. They probably assumed they would need to lie to the police, friends, and family for a day or so, then it would just go away. They never in their wildest dreams (nightmares) assumed it would blow up into a nationwide fixation. Again, he's a CEO, he tells people what happened, they believe him, and they move on.

Excellent point. It was a total accident and/or quirk of fate that the case became a global phenomenon and became a permanent fixture of our culture. Much of it boiled down to timing, the nature of the crime, and last but not least, she was beautiful, white, and upper middle class/rich. Media usually gravitates towards this demographic anyways. It would've got big even without the pageant photos/footage but that certainly helped push it into the stratosphere.

The complexities and paradoxes of the crime helped fuel the interest as well and the internet going mainstream at the same time made it the perfect case for a near infinite amount of bulletin boards to pop up and focus their attention on it.

I am fairly sure they were both in on the cover-up. They never slept that night and probably went back and forth on multiple scenarios, changing their minds, panicking, screaming, crying, you name it... There was never any ONE plan, it was a process that evolved/devolved throughout the evening. And sleep deprived adults, after such a terrible tragedy, do not always think straight, so it's not surprising the eventual plan does not make a tremendous amount of sense.

Totally agree. They were definitely both in on it although a case can be made either way on how deep John was in on it and when.

I also agree that it wasn't some 1-2-3 step process of murder and then coverup. LIke you said, it evolved in stages throughout that night, into the morning, and John was likely staging things in the basement while the cops are already there.


As far as their decision to call it a kidnapping, we may never know the exact reasoning of this. I don't buy the simple explanation of just needing to explain why a dead body is in the house. Simplicity doesn't cut the mustard on this issue. There are many ways to explain why she is dead that have nothing to do with kidnapping. One thing making it a kidnapping did is turn the case into an overall paradox although this aspect may have been accidental as I highly doubt they were imagining creating a perfect crime. There was likely a lot of arguing in the house that night and under so much stress/tension, perfect crimes aren't being brainstormed.

I'm a bit on the fence as far as moving her body goes. Its certainly a possibility and if they were going to do it, that suitcase and its placement could tell that story.




.

I think it's a mistake to assume a master plan. My guess is that the first few hours were spent in total shock, anger, fear, you name it, a roller coaster of emotions. The last couple of hours were spent trying to stage the scene in a plausible way to avoid guilt and buy time.

I definitely don't assume a master plan. I think it was a domestic dispute that spun out of control and its apex was the murder of Jonbenet. They were winging it from that moment forward and is one of the reasons the crime scene is so bizarre.


edit:

AB1:

That's interesting. Which parts are you thinking of?
The RN certainly displays mixed emotions towards JR - I read it as "you're successful, respected, but stupid".

Basically all of it but specifically its tone. She's doing nothing but venting at John and mocking him with some pop culture movie lines thrown in. If she/they are just covering for their nine year old son, the note would be lacking in her personal feelings towards John. That note does not convey marital unity to say the least.

 

[UKGuy]

Steve Jobs is a hero of mine.

Miz Adventure,
Great guy, top innovator, misunderstood in his time. Some say he was great at PR as a polite form of insult, but if you check Apple's patent filings, it shows he was no dummy.

He was so good not just once or twice, that Microsoft have also adopted his digital hub strategy.

Anyway this is off topic, so I'll finish here.

.

 

[kanzz]

Every parent would say that about their surviving child.

Might not need to include everything but it needs to include more than it does. BDI takes less into account than any theory ever pushed...including IDI.

BDI people say its because there are boxes of evidence we aren't privy to that contain that evidence, and an unaired two hour documentary that just so happens to include some people on the verge of being sued due to accusing him with no evidence, etc.

IMO that ransom note would sound entirely different if Burke killed her and Patsy is merely covering for him with it.

BBM

So - "BDI takes less into account than any theory ever pushed...including IDI."? Surely you jest.

I've never once said - it's because there are boxes of evidence to which we aren't privy that contain evidence, and/or an unaired two-hour documentary". Those two things might add weight for some people, but they certainly are not the only things that lead people to believe BDI.

I think BDI all and it doesn't have anything to do with undisclosed evidence or a TV program.

IMO, the ransom note probably holds many of the answers to the case. But I don't think any profiler or psychiatrist will ever be able to fully unlock that puzzle.

I'm not saying my theory is right and yours is wrong.

 

[singularity]

BBM

So - "BDI takes less into account than any theory ever pushed...including IDI."? Surely you jest.

I've never once said - it's because there are boxes of evidence to which we aren't privy that contain evidence, and/or an unaired two-hour documentary". Those two things might add weight for some people, but they certainly are not the only things that lead people to believe BDI.

I think BDI all and it doesn't have anything to do with undisclosed evidence or a TV program.

IMO, the ransom note probably holds many of the answers to the case. But I don't think any profiler or psychiatrist will ever be able to fully unlock that puzzle.

I'm not saying my theory is right and yours is wrong.

That post was more about BDI in general. I wasn't attacking you personally. Nope...not in jest. I've seen plenty of IDI theories over the years(yes, many of them wacky) that try to take as much of the evidence as possible into consideration. BDI sidesteps a lot of it. You would have to to as well to believe Burke did it all. THere's not even trace evidence linking him to the crime. Take an undated poop smear out of the equation, the bread crumbs of evidence in that house lead to two people.

 

[kanzz]

That post was more about BDI in general. I wasn't attacking you personally. Nope...not in jest. I've seen plenty of IDI theories over the years(yes, many of them wacky) that try to take as much of the evidence as possible into consideration. BDI sidesteps a lot of it. You would have to to as well to believe Burke did it all. THere's not even trace evidence linking him to the crime. Take an undated poop smear out of the equation, the bread crumbs of evidence in that house lead to two people.

BBM

Nah - I get it. You just choose to attack all BDI's. I didn't take it personally. I just clarified.

But here's the thing. I'd rather not play that game. I'd rather not attack anyone's theory. I'd rather not make fun of anyone.

As I said before I'm not saying my theory is right and yours is wrong. I thought we were all on the same page, more or less, in that we all agree that no IDI. But for you to say "BDI takes less into account than any theory ever pushed...including IDI." Well, that is just plain silly.

There was no intruder in that house, but BR sure as hell was.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*IMO, the ransom note probably holds many of the answers to the case. But I don't think any profiler or psychiatrist will ever be able to fully unlock that puzzle. *snip*

IMO, psychiatrist Dr Andrew G Hodges did this in his 1998 book A Mother Gone Bad: The Hidden Confession of JonBenet's Killer.

 

[kanzz]

IMO, psychiatrist Dr Andrew G Hodges did this in his 1998 book A Mother Gone Bad: The Hidden Confession of JonBenet's Killer.

Well, that's one opinion. Based primarily on the RN and PR's words. It didn't take much of anything else into account. And it was written in 1998 - long before most people knew much about the rest of the evidence.

 

[Tortoise]

IMO, psychiatrist Dr Andrew G Hodges did this in his 1998 book A Mother Gone Bad: The Hidden Confession of JonBenet's Killer.

It's surprising he wasn't sued.

 

[singularity]

BBM

Nah - I get it. You just choose to attack all BDI's. I didn't take it personally. I just clarified.

But here's the thing. I'd rather not play that game. I'd rather not attack anyone's theory. I'd rather not make fun of anyone.

As I said before I'm not saying my theory is right and yours is wrong. I thought we were all on the same page, more or less, in that we all agree that no IDI. But for you to say "BDI takes less into account than any theory ever pushed...including IDI." Well, that is just plain silly.

There was no intruder in that house, but BR sure as hell was.

Poor choice of word. I was really tired yesterday. I should've waited one more day to log in and post.

I don't attack anyone. Hell...some of my favorite members here are BDI.

 

[TeaTime]

The plan was to avoid jail.

 

[Limaes]

If someone (PR ) wrote a ransom note, then imo she/they had a plan. I have always thought they had a couple of people in mind to cast police suspicion on when planning the staging.

Firstly, Linda Hoffman-Pugh. She was the easiest.

1.The placement of the RN on the staircase the same as LHP did with P's purses.

2. LHP had physically handled P's paint tote a few days prior when she asked to store it out of the way. Was PR hoping LHP's fingerprints were still on it when introducing it into "evidence"?

3. Likewise with BR's pocket knife. LHP had also handled it a few days prior when confiscating it and placing it in the cupboard near JBR's room because he was making a mess whittling. Is it really just a coincidence that more than one item the housekeeper handled in the few days prior were introduced into the staging? Imo, no. PR was setting her up.

4. While JBR was still missing, PR told LE that LHP had asked to borrow money.

5. The R's told LE that morning that the house was all locked up the night before and when JBR was found he was heard to say it was an inside job.

That took care of the physical "evidence". Now it was time to author a RN. PR, imo, had a blank canvas to paint whatever picture she wanted.

This is where I feel they attempted to cast suspicion on Jeff Merrick, the alleged disgruntled former employee. Using JR's bonus, the term 'fat cats' and an intimate phrase of "don't try and grow a brain John" reeks of someone who had it in for JR.

I change back and forth as to when JR found out but, the point is, he did and said nothing. All just my opinion of course

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

If someone (PR ) wrote a ransom note, then imo she/they had a plan. I have always thought they had a couple of people in mind to cast police suspicion on when planning the staging.

Firstly, Linda Hoffman-Pugh. She was the easiest.

1.The placement of the RN on the staircase the same as LHP did with P's purses.

2. LHP had physically handled P's paint tote a few days prior when she asked to store it out of the way. Was PR hoping LHP's fingerprints were still on it when introducing it into "evidence"?

3. Likewise with BR's pocket knife. LHP had also handled it a few days prior when confiscating it and placing it in the cupboard near JBR's room because he was making a mess whittling. Is it really just a coincidence that more than one item the housekeeper handled in the few days prior were introduced into the staging? Imo, no. PR was setting her up.

4. While JBR was still missing, PR told LE that LHP had asked to borrow money.

5. The R's told LE that morning that the house was all locked up the night before and when JBR was found he was heard to say it was an inside job.

That took care of the physical "evidence". Now it was time to author a RN. PR, imo, had a blank canvas to paint whatever picture she wanted.

This is where I feel they attempted to cast suspicion on Jeff Merrick, the alleged disgruntled former employee. Using JR's bonus, the term 'fat cats' and an intimate phrase of "don't try and grow a brain John" reeks of someone who had it in for JR.

I change back and forth as to when JR found out but, the point is, he did and said nothing. All just my opinion of course

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

I was reading this interview(http://www.acandyrose.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm) of JR and a few things struck me. I always look for clues as to who the R's (assuming they wrote the note, which I believe) were trying to frame. When they wrote the note, it seemed like they wanted certain things to be known: that the "note writer" was in a similar business and that the note writer knew JR from Atlanta. See snippet below:

ST: John, can you think back and, I’ll tell you I feel in some aspects I know you’re life better than my own family’s, but as far back as Microsouth and APG, the mergers to Access, is there anybody, been anybody that’s been stepped on, squeezed out . . .
JR: Well, the ah, and if I go way back, that is go back to early 80’s I guess, we have formed a company with a group out of Syracuse, and ran for a couple of years in Atlanta initially. Closed down and a business loss, a hundred and fifty thousand maybe something like that. And that was not a pleasant party because it was some hurt feelings. That could be on that goes back for 25 years.
ST: Well, we’re willing to do whatever it takes. Is there a specific individual?
JR: Well, the individuals were a guy named Hurb Webb, W-E-B-B and his partner Charles Grosser.
ST: And they are still findable today?
JR: Ah, probably in Syracuse. That’s really been the only business deal we’ve ever had where there has never been any acrimony, and it was not, there were no lawsuits. I think everybody as disappointed because that, the relationship didn’t work out. We never communicated again, so.

"We respect your bussiness..." -- same business; bad business dealing.

"The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you..." -- two gentlemen directly named.

"Use that good, Southern common sense of yours..." -- started up in Atlanta.

"S.B.T.C" -- Syracuse? B..T..Computers? (Was the acronym meant to convey a corporation's abbreviation?).

I'm just trying to figure out who the R's were trying to frame when the wrote the letter, because to me, they were trying to frame someone connected to JR's past.

 

[Limaes]

I was reading this interview(http://www.acandyrose.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm) of JR and a few things struck me. I always look for clues as to who the R's (assuming they wrote the note, which I believe) were trying to frame. When they wrote the note, it seemed like they wanted certain things to be known: that the "note writer" was in a similar business and that the note writer knew JR from Atlanta. See snippet below:



"We respect your bussiness..." -- same business; bad business dealing.

"The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you..." -- two gentlemen directly named.

"Use that good, Southern common sense of yours..." -- started up in Atlanta.

"S.B.T.C" -- Syracuse? B..T..Computers? (Was the acronym meant to convey a corporation's abbreviation?).

I'm just trying to figure out who the R's were trying to frame when the wrote the letter, because to me, they were trying to frame someone connected to JR's past.

Jeff Merrick (an alleged disgruntled former Access employee who had known JR since college), Mike Glenn and Jim Marino. P's father seen them eating at Pasta Jays with a current Access employee named Carson a few weeks before Christmas '96. I guess it was still fresh in PR's mind when writing the RN.

ETA: I think JM was supposed to have wrote the RN and MG & JM were supposed to be the 2 gentlemen watching over JBR.

JM did an interview with the Peter Boyles radio show. A snippet from it is at the bottom of this link.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-jeff-kathy-merrick.htm

 

[akh]

I think it's easier to fill in the blanks if you assume not only BDI, but that he meant to do it. Strangled her, hit her in the head (pick an order to fit whatever expert wants to say one way or the other), and sexually assaulted her. I still think it's possible he tried to strangle her, she struggled, and he hit her with the flashlight to stop her from struggling and then finished the strangulation later.

The strangulation removes any chance of painting this as an accident or that he hit her but didn't mean to actually kill her. No chance it could be argued as kids being kids and things just going wrong.

All the suggestions about staging and the parents planning to dispose of the body at some point lead to a huge question: Why stage anything if you're disposing of the body? Let alone, why call police when they did?

Other questions I'd have if it is RDI but not BR: Why would either parent cover for the other? If either parent felt the other had just killed one of their children why would they circle the wagons, risk their own life and reputation, and protect this person? But if it was their other child that did it.... Then it makes MUCH more sense why'd they'd want to protect him. They've lost one child to this incident, probably reconciling it as an accident in their minds and they just should've gotten him (more?) help so it was their fault it happened. So if they don't protect him they'll lose him too. THAT is a reason to circle the wagons. There's no way in all likelihood they would've known BR was beyond the reach of the law due to his age. And even if they did know that, I think they'd still want to insulate him from the truth getting out and harming his future in some way.

So IMHO the 'staging' was simply the ransom note, any cleaning up, and maybe the tape and wrist tying. And even some of that might've just been part of BR's doing.

I think he did it and I think he meant to do it. He wanted her gone.

 

[kanzz]

I think it's easier to fill in the blanks if you assume not only BDI, but that he meant to do it. Strangled her, hit her in the head (pick an order to fit whatever expert wants to say one way or the other), and sexually assaulted her. I still think it's possible he tried to strangle her, she struggled, and he hit her with the flashlight to stop her from struggling and then finished the strangulation later.

The strangulation removes any chance of painting this as an accident or that he hit her but didn't mean to actually kill her. No chance it could be argued as kids being kids and things just going wrong.

All the suggestions about staging and the parents planning to dispose of the body at some point lead to a huge question: Why stage anything if you're disposing of the body? Let alone, why call police when they did?

Other questions I'd have if it is RDI but not BR: Why would either parent cover for the other? If either parent felt the other had just killed one of their children why would they circle the wagons, risk their own life and reputation, and protect this person? But if it was their other child that did it.... Then it makes MUCH more sense why'd they'd want to protect him. They've lost one child to this incident, probably reconciling it as an accident in their minds and they just should've gotten him (more?) help so it was their fault it happened. So if they don't protect him they'll lose him too. THAT is a reason to circle the wagons. There's no way in all likelihood they would've known BR was beyond the reach of the law due to his age. And even if they did know that, I think they'd still want to insulate him from the truth getting out and harming his future in some way.

So IMHO the 'staging' was simply the ransom note, any cleaning up, and maybe the tape and wrist tying. And even some of that might've just been part of BR's doing.

I think he did it and I think he meant to do it. He wanted her gone.

:thumb: Yep. I'm right there with you.

 

[BBB167893]

All the suggestions about staging and the parents planning to dispose of the body at some point lead to a huge question: Why stage anything if you're disposing of the body? Let alone, why call police when they did?

Probably all they could think of. I don't think the answers are as complicated as some believe.

Other questions I'd have if it is RDI but not BR: Why would either parent cover for the other? If either parent felt the other had just killed one of their children why would they circle the wagons, risk their own life and reputation, and protect this person?

Might not have felt they had any choice.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*Other questions I'd have if it is RDI but not BR: Why would either parent cover for the other? If either parent felt the other had just killed one of their children why would they circle the wagons, risk their own life and reputation, and protect this person?

What if Parent A was caught doing something with JonBenet enraging Parent B and Parent B winds up striking JonBenet on the head? Wouldn't Parent A feel like he/she had to get their hands dirty too?